3 ms·

> That's a nice reframing of his entire essay, which was about how the employees were being abused and how that was making them feel shit and shipping inferior

by bmelton 13y ago

> That's a nice reframing of his entire essay, which was about how the employees were being abused and how that was making them feel shit and shipping inferior product. I must have read a different article than you did. I didn't see anything in there about how employees were being abused whatsoever. Yeah, he thought that the politics were goofy, but they always are. Yeah, he thought that it led to an inferior product, but that doesn't mean he hated it, or that he was abused. I don't see how I've attempted to 'reframe' it in any way, but we each took dramatically different things away from that article. > You could say exactly the same thing about illegal jobs paying under minimum wage. Except those jobs would be... illegal? This one is, from what I read, not illegal in any way. I don't see how you can make a legitimate comparison between something perfectly legal and something expressly not.

vacri 13y ago
I edited the comment within a minute, I thought I'd caught it before it might have been seen. This being said, creating an environment that makes people do subpar work is something of an abuse. I've had to leave two jobs previously because the structure of the position meant it was impossible for me to turn out quality work. My initial pre-edit comment overstated this considerably, admittedly, but I do disagree that there was no comment on what can be considered abuse in the essay (eg promotions based on physical attractiveness)
- bmelton 13y ago
  Ah, apologies. I must have just refreshed the page in time. > creating an environment that makes people do subpar work is something of an abuse. I mean, I suppose that's a fair concern, but the simple fact of the matter is that MOST companies, especially large, bureaucratic ones, exhibit those same symptoms. Very few environments are 'optimal' working conditions, and what might be optimal for you might be miserable for me, and vice versa. We might be used to more amenable environments than the one exhibited in this article, but that speaks more to the luxury of other positions than it does the misery of this one. > By saying this you're effectively making the argument that as long as a job is legal, it's not abusive. Well, I mean, that's what the government has set the bar at, so yeah. The government has determined that working conditions meeting their rigid regulatory standards are not in fact abusive, as a matter of law. If an employer is paying at the very bottom of the wage scale though, they're going to get bottom-of-the-wage-scale employees, which disadvantages them in the marketplace, or affects their competitive agility. Is it great? No, but I don't personally see that it equates to abuse. Of note, I did not suggest that we couldn't (or shouldn't) boycott them for it, but calling a spade a spade, abuse it isn't, at least not to me.
vacri 13y ago
Except those jobs would be... illegal? I'm not talking about the legality of the job, but the argument structure. By saying this on the legality, you're effectively making the argument that as long as a job is legal, it's not abusive.

by bmelton 13y ago

vacri 13y ago

I edited the comment within a minute, I thought I'd caught it before it might have been seen. This being said, creating an environment that makes people do subpar work is something of an abuse. I've had to leave two jobs previously because the structure of the position meant it was impossible for me to turn out quality work. My initial pre-edit comment overstated this considerably, admittedly, but I do disagree that there was no comment on what can be considered abuse in the essay (eg promotions based on physical attractiveness)

bmelton 13y ago
Ah, apologies. I must have just refreshed the page in time. > creating an environment that makes people do subpar work is something of an abuse. I mean, I suppose that's a fair concern, but the simple fact of the matter is that MOST companies, especially large, bureaucratic ones, exhibit those same symptoms. Very few environments are 'optimal' working conditions, and what might be optimal for you might be miserable for me, and vice versa. We might be used to more amenable environments than the one exhibited in this article, but that speaks more to the luxury of other positions than it does the misery of this one. > By saying this you're effectively making the argument that as long as a job is legal, it's not abusive. Well, I mean, that's what the government has set the bar at, so yeah. The government has determined that working conditions meeting their rigid regulatory standards are not in fact abusive, as a matter of law. If an employer is paying at the very bottom of the wage scale though, they're going to get bottom-of-the-wage-scale employees, which disadvantages them in the marketplace, or affects their competitive agility. Is it great? No, but I don't personally see that it equates to abuse. Of note, I did not suggest that we couldn't (or shouldn't) boycott them for it, but calling a spade a spade, abuse it isn't, at least not to me.

vacri 13y ago

Except those jobs would be... illegal? I'm not talking about the legality of the job, but the argument structure. By saying this on the legality, you're effectively making the argument that as long as a job is legal, it's not abusive.